This bill amends 38 U.S.C. §5103A(d) to prevent the Secretary of Veterans Affairs from denying a veteran’s claim solely because the veteran did not appear for a medical examination provided by the VA in connection with that claim. The change also updates the subsection heading from focusing on compensation claims to covering claims for benefits more broadly.
The change matters because it removes an automatic procedural ground for denial that has affected veterans who face transportation, health, or other barriers to attending VA exams. Administrative practice at the VA will need to adapt: adjudicators may rely more on records, rescheduling, or alternative medical opinions, and the agency will face operational and evidentiary challenges as it implements the new restriction.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill modifies 38 U.S.C. §5103A(d) by altering the subsection’s wording and adding a new paragraph that prohibits the VA from denying a claim when the only reason for denial is a veteran’s failure to appear at a Secretary‑provided medical exam linked to the claim.
Who It Affects
Primarily affects VA adjudicators, Compensation & Pension (C&P) exam schedulers and contractors, veterans who miss or cannot attend exams (including due to disability, transportation, or mental-health barriers), and attorneys/accredited representatives who litigate claims.
Why It Matters
It narrows one ground for procedural denials, likely reducing technical denials but increasing the need for alternate development of medical evidence and potentially raising administrative workload and appeals in the near term.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill makes three narrow but meaningful edits to the statute that governs how the VA develops medical evidence for benefits claims. First, it broadens the subsection heading to cover claims for benefits, not just compensation.
Second, it updates the statutory phrasing that governs when the VA may provide or obtain medical examinations and opinions. Third, it adds an express prohibition: if a veteran does not appear for a medical exam provided by the VA in connection with a claim, the VA cannot deny that claim solely because of the no‑show.
In practical terms, the statute now prevents a one‑line denial based exclusively on a missed VA‑provided exam. That does not stop the VA from scheduling exams, requesting rescheduling, or from finding other, legitimate reasons to deny a claim (for example, lack of nexus or insufficient evidence).
It also does not cover exams not provided by the Secretary — private exams or independent medical examinations ordered by other parties are outside the new text’s protection.Operationally, adjudicators who previously used a missed exam as the dispositive reason for denial will need to document other grounds for denial or pursue alternative development: reissuing scheduling notices, obtaining private medical records or opinions, or relying on lay testimony and the existing record. Expect a short‑term increase in development activity, adjudicative complexity, and possibly remands while the VA revises procedures, trains staff, and updates scheduling and notice templates.The statute is narrow in scope and leaves intact the VA’s broader duty to assist and other decision‑making authorities.
It does not prescribe new timelines, penalties, or rescheduling rules; those will fall to VA policy and regulation to implement, which is where most of the implementation work will occur.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill amends 38 U.S.C. §5103A(d) by changing the subsection heading from “COMPENSATION CLAIMS” to “CLAIMS FOR BENEFITS.”, It replaces language in paragraph (2) to refer to the Secretary’s authority to “provide for a medical examination or obtain a medical opinion under” the statute.
The bill adds a new paragraph (3) that states the Secretary may not deny a veteran’s claim for a benefit on the sole basis that the veteran failed to appear for a Secretary‑provided medical examination associated with that claim.
The protection applies to any claim “for a benefit under a law administered by the Secretary,” making the rule broader than compensation claims alone.
The prohibition is limited: it bars only denials where the missed exam is the sole basis for the denial; the VA may still deny claims for other, independent reasons.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Designates the measure as the “Review Every Veteran’s Claim Act of 2025.” This is a purely formal provision used for citation and has no operational effect on adjudication or VA procedure.
Expand subsection scope from compensation to benefits
Amends the heading of 38 U.S.C. §5103A(d) to replace “COMPENSATION CLAIMS” with “CLAIMS FOR BENEFITS.” That heading change signals the drafters’ intent that the subsection’s rules apply to the VA’s full suite of benefits (not only compensation), which may affect interpretation and training even though headings do not carry operative legal force.
Update statutory phrasing about medical examinations and opinions
Replaces an earlier phrase about treating an examination as necessary with a direct grant of authority to the Secretary to provide for a medical examination or obtain a medical opinion. This clarifies the Secretary’s power to order VA‑provided examinations or solicit opinions, aligning statutory text with contemporary claims development practices.
Bar on denials based solely on failure to appear for VA exam
Adds a new paragraph that expressly prohibits denying a claim when the only ground for denial is that the veteran failed to appear for a VA‑provided medical exam tied to the claim. Practically, adjudicators must identify an independent basis for denial if the claim is to be denied, or pursue further development such as rescheduling, records collection, or alternate medical opinions.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Veterans across all five countries.
Explore Veterans in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Veterans with mobility, transportation, or health challenges — removes a procedural trap where missing a VA exam alone could stop a claim.
- Veterans with mental‑health barriers or PTSD who have difficulty attending in‑person exams — reduces pressure for immediate in‑person compliance to avoid automatic denial.
- Rural and remote veterans (and incarcerated claimants) who face logistical obstacles to attending VA‑provided exams — increases chances their claims will be developed through records or alternative evidence rather than denied on technical grounds.
- Veterans’ attorneys and accredited representatives — they gain a statutory lever to contest denials that rested solely on a missed VA exam and can focus advocacy on substantive development.
Who Bears the Cost
- Department of Veterans Affairs central and regional offices — will need to update adjudication policies, notices, training, and record‑handling procedures to comply and to document alternative development steps.
- VA medical exam scheduling and contractor operations — may face more rescheduling requests, administrative churn, and the need to coordinate alternate development when exams are missed.
- Claims adjudicators and veterans law specialists — increased evidentiary review and documentation responsibilities, potentially lengthening decision time per claim.
- Taxpayers and the adjudicative system generally — potential for increased appeals, remands, and short‑term administrative costs while procedures are revised and backlogs are managed.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is balancing veterans’ access to benefits — removing a technical denial route that disproportionately affected those with access barriers — against the VA’s need for reliable, medically informed evidence and efficient adjudication. Making it easier to avoid a technical denial can improve fairness for disabled and hard‑to‑reach veterans but risks increasing reliance on incomplete records, administrative burden, and inconsistent decisionmaking unless the VA defines new development and notice procedures.
The statute solves a narrow procedural problem but leaves substantial implementation work to the VA. “May not deny on the sole basis” is precise language, but it creates ambiguity in practice: adjudicators must determine when a missed exam is truly the only reason for denial, and that factual judgment can vary across regional offices. Without regulatory detail, the VA will have to decide how many rescheduling attempts are required, what notice content suffices, and when to proceed with a decision based on alternative evidence.
There is also a tension between access and evidence quality. Preventing an automatic denial reduces barriers for vulnerable veterans, but it may force adjudicators to make decisions on thinner medical records or to remand claims for collection of additional evidence, increasing workload and potentially inconsistent outcomes.
The amendment does not address private or third‑party exams, nor does it alter the VA’s authority to require exams or to deny for other substantive reasons, so litigation is likely over limits, the meaning of “sole basis,” and how the VA documents its development choices.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.